Monday, May 28, 2012

Lugar's Decision Not to Campaign for Mourdock Fits His Principles

Richard Lugar announced on Sunday that he does not plan to actively campaign for Richard Mourdock.  I don't blame him.
Senator Richard Lugar refuses
to play nice.

Listen, I didn't expect Lugar to get out there on the stump and go to every corner of the state for Mourdock, and I don't believe Mourdock would have wanted him to do so.  Still, it would have been nice for the soon-to-be former U.S. Senator to put his arm around Mourdock and give him his blessing in some way.

He did do that in his concession letter, but he pretty much said that the only reason he supports Mourdock is that he's a Republican.  He then spent the rest of the letter tearing apart Mourdock's ideology and brand of conservatism and pretty much endorsing Joe Donnelly, the Democratic candidate, without actually doing it.

Let's face it, for a vanquished candidate, Lugar still wields a pretty big stick.  No one, for example, really gives a rat's patootie what David McIntosh or John McGoff say now in Indiana's 5th District race.  They could rail against Susan Brooks, and it's not going to make a difference, but when Richard Lugar talks about the U.S. Senate race, people will still listen.  That's because many people on both sides of the aisle maintain a certain level of respect for Lugar not only for his service but for the kind of record he has built as an international statesman.  When Lugar says that he's not going to actively campaign for Mourdock, it makes news.  

I just can't understand why Republicans are so upset that Lugar is being so coy.  What did they expect him to do?  He did nothing wrong for 35 years in the Senate.  He maintained a voting record of a conservative.  For years, he earned issues ratings from conservative organizations that were impeccable.  Suddenly, in 2012, he was too liberal?  One or two votes were taken out of his long record and that made him a "friend of Barack?"

Yeah...Richard Lugar is not your puppet folks.  He's not going to play nice.  He's not going to just simply forget that you tossed him aside for someone that has a radical ideology that will bring gridlock back to Washington.  That's what Richard Lugar worked against for over 35 years, and Republicans fired him for it. 

Sorry 'bout your luck, Mr. Mourdock.

5 comments:

Paul K. Ogden said...

I wouldn't make it specific to Lugar, but I never have a problem with a primary loser not actively campaigning for a primary winner. Frankly, that's a bit unrealistic and unfair to the primary loser who probably put everything on the table to try to win and fell short. Specifically to the case at hand, having Lugar on the campaign trail would be a huge distraction to Mourdock. Reporters would constantly be wanting him to reitterate things he said in the primary against Mourdock and undermine his candidacy.

That's not to say the Lugar's attitude doesn't stink somewhat of entitlement and arrogance. He believed he owned that seat and was terribly offended that Mourdock challenged him. That turned out to be Lugar's achilles heel. Some humility in his case would have really helped him.

kafantaris said...

“[An] unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience [; it is] a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party."
Well said, Senator Lugar.
Too bad the majority of Indiana Republicans don’t see it that way. But we don’t have to join them.
Or have we reached the point where we are willing to sacrifice the good for our country so we can spite the other side? Why then have we resigned to electing people who promise to cut off our nose to spite our face?
Voting for such folks does not assert our individualism; it’s just plain old spite.
Rugged individuals have built this land and it is high time for them to stand up to the unchecked political hatred that has taken hold of our country.

Anonymous said...

I don't want nor care if Lugar backs Mourdock. I don't see why others would think a status quo, big government type would back someone who has said he is for limited government.

I didn't necessarily vote for Mourdock, I voted against Lugar. I'm glad Lugar tried to limit nuclear weapons, but I'm sick of the status quo: Spend, spend, spend. Not only that, I was very disappointed in Lugar backing far left supreme court nominees. A lot of local liberal bloggers have commented about how no compromise is just horrible. What is wrong with making the president compromise? Why should a person who is supposedly represents conservative values vote for clearly socialist judicial nominees?

Compromise works both ways. There was nothing wrong with making the president go and find a more moderate nominee. Say someone who agreed with the Heller decision, and limits those ridiculous, business killing civil rights lawsuits.

I think in the end, Lugar represented more of the same, and most people think we are heading down a very bad path. Most I've spoken with don't think just adding more and more debt, more government spending is the answer.

Anonymous said...

Boy, the $h** gets thick for teabaggers
when they talk about this Supreme Court
thing. "Far Left" is in the eye of the
beholder, particularly when the only choice they will accept is someone right
of Scalia and Alito. Winning the Presidency gives that person the opportunity to nominate, and while I'm
sure many Dems were unhappy with those who voted for Bush's candidates, I don't remember any being called fascist
because of this decision. What we are
witnessing now is the culmination of the Goldwater campaign, which will end
when the Republican party is marginalized to the status of "minor"
party.

Greg Purvis said...

Regarding the prior anonymous comment, "clearly socialist judicial nominees"... what alternate universe are you living in? Perhaps you are one of those who incorrectly equate "socialism" as "anyone to the left of Antonin Scalia", which is pretty much everyone.

Justice Scalia, by the by, is the most "activist" justice on the Supreme Court in generations, a fact conveniently ignored by those who decry so-called "liberal" activist judges.

But back to Mr. Easter's original post. Good for Senator Lugar. He sees clearly that Mourdock would be bad for the Senate, bad for Indiana, and bad for the United States. I wonder if he will do something even more drastic, such as endorse Congessman Donnelly, who is as conservative as is possible, and still be called a Democrat. One can dream.